Every so often, something happens that renews calls in this country for scientists within the federal government to have more unfettered rights to speak to media. This past week, it was the nearly comical number of layers of bureaucracy through which a request to hold a media briefing on the extent of Arctic ice erosion needed to pass. Previously, we’ve seen similar calls motivated by differences between Canadian and U.S. standards with respect to publication of research results or the presence of so-called minders at scientific conferences. I’ve hesitated to write on this despite often engaging in heated discussions on the subject, both on Twitter and in less virtual environments, because it’s not my area of expertise. It’s still not an area in which I have any formal training, and my experience is limited, but I feel that I can comment on some aspects of the debate based on the time I spent on sabbatical at Environment Canada, a department frequently attacked for the so-called muzzling of scientists.

The basic arguments in favour of loosening the controls on government scientists to speak to media often follow from one of two points: either that the research is publicly funded, and so should be accessible to the public; or, that making researchers available to the media would show that the government is hiding evidence that might otherwise undermine its policy agenda. For example, when interviewed at a protest by scientists on Parliament Hill last year, University of Ottawa professor Jeremy Kerr stated that, “the facts do not change just because the Harper government has chosen ignorance over evidence and ideology over honesty.” That’s certainly accurate, at least insofar as the facts being generally invariant to the will of the Prime Minister, but the government of Canada has no monopoly over the facts—there are plenty of entities, government-funded and otherwise, that can do a fine job of holding the government to account externally, as professor Kerr’s comments to the Star illustrate.

For me, the key questions are whether government researchers should, themselves, be able to speak out when they feel a government policy does not align with the evidence (Added 2014-08-31 - the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada raised this question in their Big Chill Survey) and, if so, why we would only restrict that to a particular class of government researchers? To speak out publicly against government policy is, by the current definition, fundamentally at odds with the role of a public servant in our democracy. Public servants are expected to provide impartial advice to the policy development process and loyal implementation of government policies once decisions are taken. They are not supposed to critique that policy publicly when it doesn’t align with their interpretation of the evidence or their beliefs with respect to how that evidence should be weighed. Allowing public servants to be openly critical of government decisions – whether based on scientific evidence or any other criteria – turns the relationship between the bureaucracy and their democratically elected masters on its head, undermining the trust essential to an effective working relationship.

Many would like to have you believe that there are issues for which we could live in a technocracy—where the science speaks so clearly as to the correct policy that there is no role for any other factors. I can’t think of a single instance where that would be so. Often-cited in debates on the muzzling of scientists is my University of Alberta colleague David Schindler and his ground-breaking work at the Experimental Lakes Area. What did that research tell us? It made clear, for the first time, the link between human activity, in particular industrial sulphur emissions and nutrient effluent from agriculture, and the health of lake ecosystems. It told us about the damages from pollution and was some of the most important and policy-relevant pieces of scientific work in this country’s history. What Dr. Schindler’s research alone could not tell us is what we should do about it. It did not tell us what costs we should be willing to impose on industry to prevent these damages, it did not tell us how Canadian economic activity, trade, and employment would react if certain policies were imposed, nor did it tell us how Canadians would prioritize expenses to defray these damages versus other potential uses of government and private sector resources. In other words, it gave us an important piece of the policy puzzle, but not the entire picture. You can’t prove, with science alone, what the policy should be—science isn’t normative—but only what is and what will be if you take a particular action.

In a policy department like Environment Canada, policy decisions are made through a process that involves bureaucrats from different disciplines including scientists, engineers and economists. Senior bureaucrats interact with the minister’s office, with central agencies like the Department of Finance, and with the Privy Council Office, which acts as the bureaucratic liaison to the Prime Minister’s Office. When a policy proposal is on the table, there are different opportunities for arguments to be made, decisions to be challenged, and evidence to be presented. As an economist visiting Environment Canada for the year, I was fortunate to participate in briefings at every level and to be given the opportunity to present evidence on occasion. Sometimes, that evidence carried the day. Sometimes, I came out of a briefing feeling that I’d lost—that economic evidence as to the best policy option, data on the cost of taking one action over another, or predictions of the likely outcome had been ignored in favour of evidence presented by others. In most cases, it hadn’t been ignored, but it just hadn’t been given the weight I thought it should. You might imagine that it was always those with the lab coats pushing stronger action, while the economists pushed for weaker action. It wasn’t. At the end of the day, senior public servants and elected officials did what they were paid to do: they weighed the evidence and made decisions.

The way the some unmuzzlers would have you believe that the system should work is that, when senior public servants or elected officials take a decision with which the scientists in the room do not agree, these scientists should — and it is largely those in the “hard” sciences that the unmuzzlers are talking about — because they are on the side of the evidence, be free to speak up and to contest that decision in the public arena. The problem with that, as I see it, is that those with the lab coats do not have a monopoly on evidence: across the federal government, there are a variety of public servants collecting and compiling data, conducting experiments, testing hypotheses, developing numerical models, and the like. Some are scientists in the conventional sense of the word (i.e. they wear lab coats) while some are economists, sociologists, statisticians, and engineers. It’s impossible to draw clear lines between what is “scientific evidence” presented to senior decision makers and what is not.

Let’s imagine the government is considering a regulation on an industrial sector and, based on the evidence presented, senior decision-makers conclude that the costs in terms of reduced output, employment, and value-added of enacting stringent regulation are justified based on the benefits to the ecosystem and/or to human health presented by the scientists (in this caricature, you can imagine the scientists wearing their lab coats in the briefing if you prefer). Now suppose that one of the experts involved—an economist in a central agency, for the sake of this caricature—decides that this decision is simply inconsistent with the evidence he or she presented. Suppose he or she decided that, if only the Canadian people were made aware of this economic evidence, they too would side with a “weaker” policy response. Clearly, it’s in the public interest to drop a brown envelope on someone’s doorstep so that the headlines the next morning might read something like, “Government considering regulation that would halt oil sands development, cost thousands of jobs,” with the story crediting an anonymous government economist privy to the discussions, right? That would push the government to make the right decision.

In the caricature I’ve presented, the evidence would all be accurate, but it would be one-sided: the article in the newspaper would show you all of the costs of the policy and none of the benefits. The implication would be clear: that the government had ignored all these costs in reaching its decision, and Canadians should be outraged. The implication would also be entirely false. All that heroic economist would have done with his or her actions would have been to tilt the decision-making process toward their preferred weighing of the evidence. Would it be any different if the decision had gone the other way, toward the less stringent policy, and it were the scientist, clad as ever in his or her lab coat, dropping off the brown envelopes? I think not.

Should we have more open government science? Perhaps. I think the better question is to what degree government-supported research should take place in arms-length agencies (the U.S. model for agencies like NASA and the Energy Information Administration come to mind) or outsourced to universities via government granting agencies as opposed to being housed in policy departments. Research housed outside of government departments would allow elected and bureaucratic offices to determine which questions are being asked by researchers or which subject areas are being explored without having influence over the answers or controlling the message. It would also mean that researchers were not privy to the policy discussions of the day and would not necessarily be involved when their research is used to support a decision. There are also options within the public service: perhaps Statistics Canada could broaden its role to collect and publish more environmental statistics such as the sea ice coverage, which was the subject of so much consternation this week, perhaps absorbing some of the functions now performed within Environment Canada. In the same way in which no one would ask a Statistics Canada official what government should do to combat youth unemployment or to raise median incomes when those data are published, no one would ask whether the extent of sea ice coverage should influence our climate change policy choices. When you’re asking officials from the department with jurisdiction over both our domestic climate change policies and our intervention in international climate change negotiations about sea ice coverage, the implications are very different. The questions to the scientist might even be policy-neutral, but I expect most of the resulting articles would not be.

If you want to take the muzzle off government researchers, that’s fine if you want it for the right reasons. I’m all in favour of increasing the quality of information available both to our decision-makers and to the general public. However, we must do it without skewing the policy process. The only way to make sure that’s true if you want open access to researchers is to disconnect those undertaking primary and policy-relevant research from that process and from those departments. Whether that’s best done through arms-length institutions, through universities, or through agencies such as Statistics Canada is a topic for debate. Of course, there are some topics of current government research not suited to open inquiry, for a variety of reasons. Maybe you’re willing to sacrifice some of those topics for access to information? You might also find that some of our government’s best researchers prefer their seat at the policy table to the front pages of the newspaper. Maybe that’s a sacrifice you’re willing to make? Unfortunately, I doubt you’ll be able to rely on anyone in a lab coat to tell you with certainty which is best for the country.

On the other hand, if your reason for removing the muzzle is because you think policy decisions need to be skewed or the government needs to be challenged, then there’s a better process for that that doesn’t involve sacrificing our public service. Rumour has it it will happen next October, if not sooner.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/un-muzzle-the-scientists-not-so-fast/feed/112Federal departments struggling to meet internal 2020 emissions targetshttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/federal-departments-struggling-to-meet-internal-2020-emissions-targets/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/federal-departments-struggling-to-meet-internal-2020-emissions-targets/#commentsFri, 10 Jan 2014 12:12:48 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=453776OTTAWA – Never mind those international targets, the federal government appears to be having trouble meeting even its own internal operational goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
An internal PowerPoint…

OTTAWA – Never mind those international targets, the federal government appears to be having trouble meeting even its own internal operational goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

An internal PowerPoint presentation prepared by Public Works and Government Services Canada asks each federal department to ante up its emissions reductions number for the coming 2014-15 fiscal year.

And it prods departments to “please consider increasing your commitment to help bridge the current five per cent gap.”

“They’re clearly going to miss their targets,” said John McKay, the Liberal environment critic.

“I can’t say I’m overly surprised by that given that they’re not serious about national targets, so why would they be serious about government targets.”

As part of a “greening government operations” exercise, the Conservatives have committed to reducing GHG emissions from federal buildings and transportation fleets by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020.

That’s the same target the Harper government agreed to for Canada as a whole as part of the Copenhagen accord in 2009.

A fall report from Environment Canada shows the country is slipping further away from meeting its Copenhagen emissions goal, although the government likes to claim Canada is halfway to the target.

Similarly, when Public Works says there’s a five per cent gap in operational emissions cuts, it doesn’t mean the government’s work is 95 per cent complete.

A 2012 report by Environment Canada on the federal sustainable development strategy makes clear “the government is on track to achieve a 12 per cent decrease in emission levels relative to the base year by fiscal year 2020-2021. A projected gap of about five per cent highlights the need for additional efforts in order to achieve the 17 per cent federal target.”

In other words, the government is currently on pace to miss its self-imposed internal 17-per-cent target by five percentage points — or almost 30 per cent. And it would seem no headway has been made on that front since 2012.

Public Works says the current reductions are “more significant … than what was anticipated for the second year of implementation of the federal sustainable development strategy.”

Spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email that the current reductions are “subject to change over time as departments analyze their data, adjust their plans and adopt new plans in order to reach the targets by 2020.”

It’s not the only troubling progress report that’s come to light on Canada’s efforts to reduce emissions.

The government quietly submitted two reports last month to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that show Canada’s emissions will spike sharply upward after 2020, driven largely by expansion of the oil sands.

Emissions between 2020 and 2030 are predicted to climb by 81 million tonnes, taking Canada 11 per cent above 2005 levels — notwithstanding hopes that a new round of international climate negotiations in 2016 are supposed to find further global reductions from the 2005 base year.

“Under all scenarios over the forecast period, emissions are expected to grow the fastest in oil sands extraction and upgrading,” says the Canadian report to the U.N.

McKay, the Liberal critic, says if the government can’t get its own emissions under control, it can’t push other sectors of the economy, noting the federal government accounts for almost 15 per cent of Canada’s GDP.

“If you don’t get leadership out of the federal government in getting their own house in order, how can you actually reasonably expect the rest of the citizens of Canada to be serious about greenhouse gases?” said the Liberal MP.

McKay acknowledged not nearly enough was done under the previous Liberal governments to reduce Canadian emissions as per the 1997 Kyoto protocol.

“But after a while the blame exercise gets a little tired, especially since you’ve had six or seven years to get your main emitter under control, which is the oil and gas industry.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a year-end interview that long-delayed regulations on the oil and gas sector will be announced “over the next couple of years.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/federal-departments-struggling-to-meet-internal-2020-emissions-targets/feed/2Environment Canada plans changes to wind chill warningshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-plans-changes-to-wind-chill-warnings/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-plans-changes-to-wind-chill-warnings/#commentsSun, 29 Dec 2013 15:47:46 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=451232EDMONTON – The federal government is working on a new way to warn Canadians about the need to protect themselves from the dangers of frigid weather.
Right now, Environment Canada…

EDMONTON – The federal government is working on a new way to warn Canadians about the need to protect themselves from the dangers of frigid weather.

Right now, Environment Canada issues wind chill warnings when cold temperatures and wind speeds combine to exceed health-threatening thresholds, which differ depending on where you live across the country.

Under a program being developed with Health Canada, the weather office would issue an Extreme Cold Warning when temperatures plunge to dangerous levels, even if winds are calm.

“Working outside in the cold air there is still the possibility that you can get frostbite on a nice cold day with light winds,” said Blair Morrow, an Environment Canada meteorologist working on the project.

“We just want to provide Canadians with advance warning to take the necessary steps to protect themselves.”

Morrow said a brutally cold day in Edmonton in early December illustrates why such a change is needed. This Dec. 6, Environment Canada issued a wind chill warning for an area when the temperature dipped to -30 C and winds hit 19 km/h, producing a face-numbing wind chill of -42 C.

Under the current system, no warning would have been issued had the temperature plunged to -42 C and the winds been light, even though the threat of frostbite or hypothermia would have been just as high.

Morrow said when the new system is introduced, perhaps as early as in 2014, Canadians will no longer see separate wind chill warnings in Environment Canada forecasts or on its website.

Wind chill and cold temperatures will be included together in the Extreme Cold Warnings.

“When the program is implemented, the new Extreme Cold Warning will be issued in situations of cold temperature and light winds to allow Canadians to take necessary steps to protect their health.”

The new warning would be linked to information on the Environment Canada website about how people can protect themselves from cold weather.

Extreme cold is a killer in Canada and is the biggest cause of weather-related fatalities.

Environment Canada climatologist David Phillips said about 100 people die of cold-related causes each year. Many more people suffer from frostbite and less serious frostnip.

This happens despite the fact that detailed weather forecasts and information are more readily available than ever before.

Phillips said one only has to watch motorists drive during the first snowstorm of the season and see how people dress during the first bad cold snap to realize many Canadians forget they live in the second-coldest country in the world after Russia.

“Educating Canadians about the weather could go on forever,” Phillips said.

Part of that education will involve the new Extreme Cold Warnings, part of the evolution of the current wind chill warning concept that was developed in 2001.

Over the years, wind chill warnings have been expressed in different ways: the time it would take for exposed flesh to freeze; heat loss in watts per square metre; or how the equivalent cold temperature due to wind speed feels on exposed skin.

For weather forecasters, it’s fine tuning the message about the dangers of extreme cold in the hope that more people will pay attention.

“Under certain wind conditions, Canadians are probably tricked into thinking that ‘Wow, it is not cold out there’, when it is.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-plans-changes-to-wind-chill-warnings/feed/3Federal light-bulb ban set for 2014http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/federal-light-bulb-ban-set-for-2014/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/federal-light-bulb-ban-set-for-2014/#commentsFri, 13 Dec 2013 10:38:01 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=448775Seven years after announcement, tough regulations have been watered down

OTTAWA – A federal ban on inefficient light bulbs goes into effect Jan. 1, 2014, almost seven years after it was announced with fanfare by a then-rookie Conservative government.

But the tough regulations are being watered down, and there are no federal rules yet on recycling a class of bulbs that meet the new standard but contain toxic mercury.

The Conservative government announced an aggressive plan in 2007 that would effectively remove most incandescent bulbs from retail shelves in favour of more expensive alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs.

The new rules were set to start in 2012, but then were postponed to Jan. 1, 2014, to “allay” consumer concerns about cost and flexibility.

In the meantime, the government proposed allowing a newer kind of incandescent bulb, filled with halogen gas, to remain on store shelves even though it doesn’t meet the tough efficiency standards that were proposed in 2007 when the environment was top of mind for most Canadians.

The relaxed proposed rule about halogen bulbs, which are cheaper than CFLs, is out for public commentary until Dec. 19, and won’t be part of the new regime Jan. 1.

A spokeswoman for Natural Resources says the government intends to implement the halogen exception in a “timely fashion,” depending on feedback, with no deadline set.

And Environment Canada still has not enacted new regulations that would limit the amount of mercury contained in each CFL, and that would compel manufacturers and distributors to recycle them.

The uncertainty and inaction is a far cry from the splashy announcement in 2007, when then-environment minister John Baird touted the Conservative government’s bold leadership.

Baird told a 2007 news conference staged at a Home Depot outlet in Nepean, Ont., that the light-bulb initiative would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by more than six million tonnes annually. He encouraged the recycling of the new CFLs at Home Depot and other retailers voluntarily offering such programs.

Earlier this year, Home Depot ended its CFL recycling program, saying provinces and “third-party agencies are better equipped to manage these kinds of programs.”

A spokesman for Environment Canada says regulations that require recycling programs and that set mercury-content limits remain a work in progress.

“Environment Canada is developing measures that set limits for mercury content in compact fluorescent lamps and require labels about their safe disposal, and is also considering options for the management of mercury-containing lamps when they become waste,” Mark Johnson said in an email.

“Some provinces already have initiatives to deal with mercury lamps as waste. We will ensure that our efforts are complementary to provincial and territorial initiatives.”

A 2012 study for Environment Canada found that Canada’s mercury-waste facilities are either patchwork or non-existent, and that there are no national standards.

Researchers also found that much mercury waste winds up in municipal landfills, where it can leach into groundwater.

The chemical is highly toxic. Minute amounts can seriously damage the nervous system. The mercury contained in just one medical thermometer can contaminate five Olympic-size swimming pools to toxic levels.

As of Jan. 1, 75- and 100-watt incandescent bulbs will be effectively eliminated from store shelves, with 40- and 60-watt versions to follow Dec. 31. However, the industry can continue to ship non-efficient bulbs, such as traditional incandescents, as long as they were manufactured before Jan. 1.

Traditional incandescents lose about 90 per cent of their energy as heat, but are inexpensive and some Canadians have been hoarding them in advance of the ban. CFLs can cost from $1 to $10 more than incandescents for each bulb.

Halogen incandescent bulbs are generally less expensive than CFLs, more efficient than traditional incandescents and contain no mercury. They are also permitted under the energy-efficiency regime in the United States, Canada’s largest trading partner.

Environmentalists generally applaud Canada’s new energy-efficiency regulations for bulbs, but say there must also be strict rules on recycling any mercury from broken CFLs.

“It’s ridiculous that the two pieces of regulation are not going hand in hand,” said MP Megan Leslie, the NDP’s environment critic. “The mercury issue is real and serious.”

Leslie applauded the ban on energy-inefficient light bulbs, and welcomed efforts by some businesses to recycle CFLs, but said recycling should be mandatory, not voluntary.

“We cannot put these CFLs in landfills,” she said in an interview.

Environment Canada’s Johnson says limits proposed in early 2011 for the amount of mercury in CFLs had been expected to be in place by now.

But after receiving numerous public comments, the department “conducted extensive consultations with key stakeholders to address the issues raised in order to have cost-effective regulations that would protect human health and the environment while minimizing the administrative burden on industry.”

He added: “Some sectors may have already started to take action toward meeting the proposed mercury content limits in lamps, including compact fluorescent lamps and by informing Canadians of the presence of mercury in lamps and on proper procedures for the clean-up and disposal of CFLs.”

What you need to know:

Genesis: In April 2007, Conservative government proposes new energy-efficiency regulations, to come into effect beginning Jan. 1, 2012. Regulations amended in October 2011 to delay implementation by two years, starting Jan. 1, 2014, to “allay” concerns of consumers about cost and flexibility.

Impact: Regulations would not ban incandescents outright, but would effectively require retailers to replace them with so-called compact fluorescent lamps or CFLs, which contain small amounts of toxic mercury. Another more expensive alternative is mercury-free LED lights. Government also proposes allowing incandescent halogen lamps, which are not as efficient as CFLs but are cheaper and contain no mercury.

Quantity: Environment Canada estimates the regulations would require about 1,500 kilograms of new mercury in CFLs between 2014 and 2026. Other consumer goods now containing mercury include some batteries, switches, relays and thermometers.

Current consumer mercury: Environment Canada estimates the use and disposal of products containing mercury represent about 27 per cent of Canada’s current domestic emissions of this toxic metal.

Foreign sources: Some 96 per cent of human-made mercury pollution deposited in Canada every year arrives through airborne foreign emissions, with China as a major source because of its coal-fired plants.

Dangers: Minute amounts of mercury can have serious health consequences. The substance can cross the placenta into the fetus, can be transmitted through breast milk, and is often concentrated in fish, birds and marine mammals, especially in the Arctic. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and can cause tremors, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular changes, headaches and other problems.

Recycling/waste facilities: A 2012 report found 123 facilities that store or manage mercury waste in Canada. There is no facility in Canada to extract pure mercury from waste for recycling. Waste often sent to U.S.

Managing CFL mercury waste: Federal government has proposed but not enacted limits on the amount of mercury permitted in each CFL. Ottawa also considering compelling manufacturers and importers to manage the mercury waste from the CFLs they sell, through recycling or proper disposal, but has not yet proposed regulations.

Consumers: Consumers who have CFLs that are broken or burnt out should not dispose of them with regular garbage. Rather, they need to be taken to a waste facility or retail program for proper disposal of the mercury content. One website with advice on finding a local waste facility is Earth911.com.

Cost-benefit: Natural Resources says new regulations would deliver between $749 million and $2.4 billion in energy and greenhouse gas savings for Canadians, including 7.5 megatonnes of reduced annual greenhouse-gas emissions in 2025.

OTTAWA – The Conservative government is punting long-awaited environmental regulations for the oil and gas sector into the indefinite future.

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq is refusing to put any timeline on rules that will force the emissions-heavy sector to clean up its act, although the regulations have been years in the making.

Her Conservative predecessor in the environment portfolio once predicted the regulations would be released last January, then revised the date to this past summer.

Now Aglukkaq is telling a House of Commons committee it would be premature to even speculate on when the new rules might be unveiled, repeatedly stressing she is in negotiations with the provinces and territories.

Aglukkaq later emphatically denied to reporters that the provinces are holding up the regulations, although she reluctantly gave a more nuanced response when asked about the role of the oil and gas industry in the talks.

Liberal environment critic John McKay says the government needs to bring in emissions regulations for the sector in order to give U.S. President Barack Obama an excuse to approve the Keystone XL pipeline — which McKay says has become a proxy fight over reducing greenhouse gases.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/no-timeline-on-long-overdue-oil-and-gas-environmental-regulations-aglukkaq/feed/1Environment Canada approves commercial production of genetically modified salmonhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-approves-commercial-production-of-genetically-modified-salmon/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-approves-commercial-production-of-genetically-modified-salmon/#commentsMon, 25 Nov 2013 21:29:14 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=443646A U.S. company hoping to commercially produce genetically modified salmon eggs in Canada says it has cleared a major hurdle in its proposal to make the fish available for human…

A U.S. company hoping to commercially produce genetically modified salmon eggs in Canada says it has cleared a major hurdle in its proposal to make the fish available for human consumption, a possibility that has critics worried about the prospect of “frankenfish” escaping and endangering wild Atlantic salmon around the world.

Environment Canada’s conclusion that the eggs are not harmful to the environment or human health when produced in contained facilities marks a significant step for Aquabounty Technologies, the company’s CEO said Monday.

But Ron Stotish said the hatchery in Souris, P.E.I., is still waiting for decisions from Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before the fish and eggs are available for sale.

“We would be regulated as a novel food in Canada for actual consumption of the fish and that is a separate approval process,” Stotish said.

“At the moment, everything is still as it was. It’s only the status of the facility moving from research and development to essentially a facility that could be used for commercial purposes.”

But Aquabounty’s plans have drawn opposition from some state lawmakers in the U.S. including Alaska, and from environmental groups who fear that the genetically modified fish could escape their onshore farms and put wild populations at risk.

In February, the public response was so strong that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it was extending its comments period on its preliminary assessments of the fish, which found they posed no significant environmental impact.

Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network said Environment Canada’s decision is alarming because it was made without any public consultation and could help clear the way for the commercial sale of the world’s first genetically modified food animal.

She said Ottawa’s decision is a surprise given that federal officials hadn’t indicated publicly that a review was underway.

“The announcement is a huge surprise in that even after repeated requests (for information) we were never told that this decision was even being taken.”

In an email, Environment Canada said the decision was made by departmental scientists “based on a thorough scientific evaluation of the latest evidence and studies.” The department also said that the federal government has effective regulations in place to protect the environment and human health from potentially adverse effects of genetically engineered organisms in Canada.

Stotish said Aquabounty’s proposal was subject to a risk assessment conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada involving a panel of independent experts in transgenics and fish containment technology.

The sterile, all-female eggs were developed at Memorial University in Newfoundland and at the University of Toronto, and produced at the hatchery in P.E.I., while the fish are reared in Panama.

The process sees the Atlantic salmon egg modified with genes from chinook salmon and an eel-like fish called the ocean pout. It makes the fish grow twice as fast as conventional fish.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-approves-commercial-production-of-genetically-modified-salmon/feed/3How not to be fooled by statements on emission ‘reductions’http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/how-not-to-be-fooled-by-statements-on-emission-reductions/
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/how-not-to-be-fooled-by-statements-on-emission-reductions/#commentsWed, 30 Oct 2013 14:59:22 +0000Andrew Leachhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=435966Andrew Leach explains, with the help of chicken wings and beer

Suppose you run into an old friend whom you haven’t seen for some time. You notice that he looks a little thicker than you remembered around the waist, but, since you aren’t one of those academics who shuns basic manners, you keep mum.

“It’s simple, really,” he says. “On the path I was on — eating chicken wings and drinking beer almost every day — I would surely have gained 40 pounds in no time. I stuck to my plan, though, and by having wings and beer only on weekends, I gained a mere 20 pounds. Who would have thought you could drink beer, eat chicken wings, and still lose weight!”

Sounds like an absurd calculation, doesn’t it? This type of thinking, though, is the bread-and-butter of discussions about greenhouse gas policies — it’s called a reduction relative to business-as-usual. A case in point is this week’s Emissions Trends report from Environment Canada, were you can read the following:

As a result of the combined efforts of federal, provincial and territorial governments, consumers and businesses, GHG emissions in 2020 will be 734 megatonnes (Mt). This is 128 Mt lower than where emissions would be in 2020 if no action were taken to reduce GHGs since 2005. [Emphasis mine.]

There’s nothing wrong with these calculations — in fact, you could argue that they give a far better picture of the impact policies are actually having in the economy than simply looking at changes in emissions over time. The problem, however, is that the subtlety of the reduction being measured relative to a scenario where no policies are imposed often gets lost. Take Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s recent USA Today column, which states that GHG policies “allowed our province to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 million tons.” As the Calgary Herald‘s Don Braid, pointed out, such excitement about Alberta’s GHG diet “hinged on a calculation of what total emissions would have been, if the province had done nothing at all.” Of course, Alberta’s emissions haven’t declined at all — they’ve increased significantly and are projected to continue to do so.

Next time someone tells you about an emissions reduction (or a weight loss regime, for that matter) that seems too good to be true, make sure you ask one clarifying question: Reduction relative to what?

*Disclosure: The author recently spent a year on secondment as the first Visiting Scholar at Environment Canada.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/how-not-to-be-fooled-by-statements-on-emission-reductions/feed/78Canada won’t come close to meeting emissions target: Environment Canadahttp://www.macleans.ca/general/canada-wont-come-close-to-meeting-emissions-target-environment-canada/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/canada-wont-come-close-to-meeting-emissions-target-environment-canada/#commentsThu, 24 Oct 2013 20:14:11 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=434826OTTAWA – The latest internal government report confirms Canada is not close to being on track to meet its promised target for emissions cuts by the year 2020.
The Environment…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/canada-wont-come-close-to-meeting-emissions-target-environment-canada/feed/1Federal government to look at exotic pet store rules, Harper sayshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-delivered-python-to-exotic-pet-store-in-new-brunswick/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-delivered-python-to-exotic-pet-store-in-new-brunswick/#commentsFri, 09 Aug 2013 20:15:21 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=412264MIRAMICHI, N.B. – The federal government will review whether it needs to play a role in how exotic pet stores are regulated following the deaths of two boys who were…

MIRAMICHI, N.B. – The federal government will review whether it needs to play a role in how exotic pet stores are regulated following the deaths of two boys who were killed by a snake in northern New Brunswick, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

Harper made his comments in Miramichi, N.B., just as zoo staff seized 23 reptiles and euthanized four alligators that belonged to Reptile Ocean in Campbellton, N.B.

An African rock python killed two young brothers in an apartment above the pet store earlier this week.

Harper said such a tragedy should never happen.

“We’re going to look at all that has happened here to get all of the facts,” he said.

“My understanding is that these types of establishments are regulated mainly by provincial governments. But at our level as well, we will try to ascertain exactly what has occurred and if there is a federal role, what needs to be done about that.”

Environment Canada said that 11 years ago, it delivered the python to the store at the centre of the tragedy. That happened even though the species was banned in the province without a special permit.

Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson said in an email that the federal department was enlisted to help transport the snake to Reptile Ocean after it was abandoned at the SPCA in Moncton, N.B. He said department records indicate Reptile Ocean was operating as a zoo when the snake arrived at the facility in August 2002.

New Brunswick’s Department of Natural Resources said only accredited zoos can apply for a permit to own a banned species, including the African rock python in question.

But Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums said it is the only recognized national body to accredit zoos in the country and it has no record of Reptile Ocean ever applying for accreditation.

The Natural Resources Department declined to say whether Reptile Ocean was issued a permit for the python. But it has said it was unaware the 45-kilogram snake even existed until four-year-old Noah Barthe and his six-year-old brother Connor were asphyxiated this week by the reptile.

No one from the department was made available for a phone interview.

Spokeswoman Anne Bull declined to say in an email whether Reptile Ocean was ever considered a zoo, citing the ongoing police investigation and privacy concerns. She was unable to say whether unaccredited zoos can legally operate in the province.

The Harper government’s budget cuts to scientific research at Environment Canada have compromised the department’s capacity to crack down on cancer-linked pollution and its mandate to enforce clean air regulations, say enforcement officers in a collection of internal emails obtained by Postmedia News.

As the government continues consultations with the oil and gas industry on regulations to address rising heat-trapping greenhouse gases, the emails, exchanged between Environment Canada enforcement officers from various regions including Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver, said that the government was eliminating the only Canadian group capable of writing and supervising credible testing methods for new and existing rules to impose limits on pollution from smokestacks.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-31/feed/6Would Canadians support a carbon tax?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/would-canadians-support-a-carbon-tax/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/would-canadians-support-a-carbon-tax/#commentsTue, 12 Mar 2013 17:59:54 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=359512Maybe. But if it were that easy, Stephane Dion would be PM

Keith Neuman of Environics argues the public is willing to accept a tax on carbon emissions.

Let’s start with the B.C. carbon tax, which was introduced by then-Premier Gordon Campbell with surprisingly little advance preparation of the political or public ground. Public opinion surveys conducted just after the announcement showed a modest majority of British Columbians in support of the new policy. This support wavered later in the year when the tax came into effect at the same time gas prices spiked, but later recovered and subsequently withstood a frontal attack by the NDP in the 2009 provincial election. Today, the B.C. carbon tax is supported by a clear majority (64 per cent) of provincial residents, and unlikely to be an issue in the upcoming May election.

Does British Columbia represent an anomaly that could not be repeated in other parts of the country? In fact, research conducted by Environics Research and more recently the Environics Institute shows that a majority (59 per cent) of Canadians outside of B.C. would support the introduction of a B.C. style carbon tax in their own province, a proportion that has been slowly building over the past four years. Majority support for such a tax is expressed in all provinces except Alberta (at 43 per cent), and is most widespread in Quebec (67 per cent), followed by Manitoba (59 per cent), Saskatchewan (58 per cent), Ontario (58 per cent) and Atlantic Canada (54 per cent).

The research from Environics, which has been asking about a BC-style carbon tax since February 2008, shows that support has gradually increased and strong opposition has decreased. But its finding would seem to clash with what a survey conducted for Environment Canada found last June. In that poll, 43.5% of respondents disagreed with the idea of a federal carbon tax.

On that count, it is probably worth noting how the survey questions were phrased.

Here is what Environics asked.

As you may know, British Columbia now has a tax on all carbon-based fuels used by consumers and businesses in the province, as a way to encourage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated in the province. This tax is now 7.2 cents per litre. This tax is “revenue neutral” which means the same amount raised through this tax each year is refunded – by law – to taxpayers in the form of lower personal income and corporate taxes. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this carbon tax for B.C.?

And here is the statement that Environment Canada tested.

Canada needs to implement a federal carbon tax to promote energy efficiency and protect the environment, even though it means increasing the cost of things like gas and groceries for consumers.

This would seem to suggest that how the proposal is presented has some impact on how the proposal is received. See also this survey from 2008.

And there are at least two other complications here. First, neither the Liberal proposal of a carbon tax in 2008, nor the NDP’s proposal of cap-and-trade match the proposal presented by Environics: Stephane Dion would have used some of the revenue to assist low-income families, Thomas Mulcair would use most of the revenue for environmental initiatives.

The Stephane Dion experience demonstrated that no matter how much a policy can be justified, it still needs sufficient popular support and political execution to be enacted. Polling numbers such as these should have some impact on the discussion. But they obviously don’t quite win the debate.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/would-canadians-support-a-carbon-tax/feed/60Elizabeth May, investigative reporterhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-may-investigative-reporter/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-may-investigative-reporter/#commentsTue, 29 Jan 2013 21:35:46 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=344197The Green MP had the the final question this afternoon and rose with the following.
Elizabeth May. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a genuine concern and I hope the …

The Green MP had the the final question this afternoon and rose with the following.

Elizabeth May. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a genuine concern and I hope the Prime Minister can allay my fears. I have heard, from credible sources within the government, that there is a proposal to eliminate Environment Canada by merging it with Natural Resources Canada. If it had not been from credible sources, I would not be putting this question to him. I would like assurances that no such plan is under consideration.

Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to meet any of these credible sources and correct any misinformation they may be giving the hon. member.

This wasn’t quite a denial, so I followed up with the Prime Minister’s Office: Does the government have any plans to merge Environment Canada with the Department of Natural Resources? The answer, I’m told, is “no.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-may-investigative-reporter/feed/20Most of Canada likely in for a green Christmas Dayhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/most-of-canada-likely-in-for-a-green-christmas-day/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/most-of-canada-likely-in-for-a-green-christmas-day/#commentsMon, 17 Dec 2012 10:30:23 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=329319TORONTO – Waking up to a winter wonderland on Christmas Day will be more of a dream than reality for many parts of the country, cautions Canada’s top weather man.…

TORONTO – Waking up to a winter wonderland on Christmas Day will be more of a dream than reality for many parts of the country, cautions Canada’s top weather man.

Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips says he hates to be the grinch, but the chances of having snow on the ground on Dec. 25 are looking bleak for many Canadians.

“It’s one of the things where we’re seen united as Canadians, in wanting it to be a white Christmas,” said Phillips.

“We want it on that day to put us in the mood. It’s almost like (having) turkey and toys. It’s just part of the feeling at Christmas time.”

But the reality is that only about a quarter of the population will have that wish come true — especially if you live in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

“There are some areas in Canada that are clearly a done deal,” he said. “Out west, not only is it going to be a white Christmas, it’s going to be a white Easter. They’ve been buried in snow.”

Newfoundland, parts of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island also have some chances of a wintry Christmas, along with those living in Ottawa, Sault Ste Marie, Ont., Quebec City and Montreal.

Yet for those living in most parts of Ontario, British Columbia and many other locations, Phillips says it’s a “toss up” that you’ll probably get better weather on Christmas Day for football game than tobogganing.

Environment Canada defines a white Christmas as having at least two centimetres of snow on the ground on the morning of Dec. 25.

According to statistics the agency has kept since 1955, the chances of getting a white Christmas have been dropping across Canada year after year.

“We have this reputation. We are known as the Cold White North. But I don’t think we’re as cold and white as we once were,” said Phillips.

“Our reputation is being undermined. Winter is not… what it used to be. It was more of a done deal. It was more of a guarantee.”

In fact, on average there was an 80 per cent chance of having a snowfall on Christmas Day in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Fast-forward to the last 20 years, and those odds on average have slipped to 65 per cent, according to Environment Canada.

That’s most true in Toronto where there hasn’t been any snow on the ground on Dec. 25 since 2008. That winter, parts of southern Ontario was repeatedly walloped with snowstorms carrying high winds and bringing near-record snow fall levels.

Phillips says this year, even if you do get a wintry holiday, it is more likely to be a light dusting than a big dump come Christmas Day.

Many of the reasons for the warmer winters can be attributed to climate change, he added.

“The lesson for this is if you get one: embrace it, enjoy it because it is something that future generations will have be dreaming a little harder to get,” said Phillips. “We know the future is warmer and with less snow.”

OTTAWA – Forget fashion magazines — a new survey suggests an increasing number of Canadians turn to weather forecasts to figure out what to wear.

The Environment Canada public-opinion survey examined where Canadians get their weather information and how they use it.

It suggests 36 per cent of Canadians use weather information to determine how to dress, up from 23 per cent in 2007.

The most popular way to use weather information remains to help plan outdoor events, though more Canadians are also using it for gardening, the analysis of the results suggests.

The study was carried out by Harris Decima between May 8 and 20, with 1,255 surveys completed by telephone and 1,257 completed online.

The analysis published by the department this week looks only at the phone results, which have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Environment Canada has carried out similar surveys in 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2011, using them to determine what Canadians think of the services the government provides and how people want to get their weather information.

Most say they want to look for such information themselves but where they are looking appears to be changing slightly.

Radio and television — both the Weather Network channel and other stations — are the dominant sources, though newspapers ranked higher this year than in 2007.

But the study suggests the Internet is increasingly becoming a go-to source.

General Internet is mentioned a source by 29 per cent of Canadians — the same percentage who note general television as the place they look for a forecast.

Meanwhile, about 12 per cent of Canadians mentioned smart phone applications as a source, nearly twice as many than 2011.

“Just under a quarter of Canadians (and over a third of 18 to 34 year olds) are interested in receiving weather information via Facebook, while one in 10 is interested in similar services from Twitter or YouTube.”

The online exception appears to be the government’s own weather website, weatheroffice.gc.ca.

Fewer Canadians reported being aware of it this year than last, and the proportion of those who say they use it once a day is down by five percentage points from 2007.

Awareness that the government also produces a special radio that broadcasts weather information around-the-clock also appears to be at an all-time low.

“Both of these services seem to be at risk of only serving a small niche of the Canadian weather information and services market,” the report said.

In a year of earthquakes, hurricanes and other serious weather events, the survey also looked at the extent to which Canadians believe their communities are at risk of extreme weather.

About 36 per cent of Canadians felt their community was somewhat at risk, and seven per cent felt they were very at risk.

But when they see a weather warning, fewer than half of Canadians reported they don’t respond.

What kind of weather matters depends on where respondents lived.

Those surveyed were presented four different weather scenarios and asked to choose a phrase from each set that would be the most significant if it appeared in a weather report.

British Columbians and Albertans viewed icy roads as being more significant than freezing rain or heavy snow.

Quebecers were more likely than other Canadians to believe the risk of thunderstorms was more significant than 90 kilometre-per-hour winds or power outages.

Ontarians were the only Canadians who believe a humidex of 43 degrees would be more significant than a high temperature of 35 degrees.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/what-not-to-wear-canadian-edition-mother-nature-dictates-style/feed/0The quiet cutshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-11/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-11/#commentsThu, 19 Apr 2012 16:33:08 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=253572Mike De Souza tallies the cuts at Environment Canada.
About $4 million in funding for response to oil spills or other environmental emergencies is being cut as part of a …

About $4 million in funding for response to oil spills or other environmental emergencies is being cut as part of a shift toward a “nationally co-ordinated” model that would focus on providing advice from a central location. Meantime, the monitoring of water pollution will “be made more efficient,” along with a reduction in “the overall number of monitoring stations,” for upper atmospheric ozone.

Thomas Duck, an atmospheric scientist from Dalhousie University, suggested the government has no evidence to support its plan. ”The observational network was put together very carefully by experts over many years,” said Duck. “This is reckless destruction of important scientific capacity that is needed to protect the health and safety of Canadians.”

Oil spill monitoring in British Columbia will also be cut, news of which drew an enlightening response from Peter Kent’s office.

The federal government has sought to downplay concerns about the changes. “This will not impact Canadians or the environment,” said a statement from Environment Minister Peter Kent’s office this week. ”These employees were not cleaning up spills. They were providing information about environmentally sensitive land and species at risk.”

An Environment Canada presentation prepared last spring warns of the potential cost of not addressing collateral damage from the oilsands industry in Alberta, according to Postmedia. The report was marked “secret” but obtained via access to information legislation. It notes: “Contamination of the Athabasca River is a high-profile concern,” and highlights “questions about possible effects on health of wildlife and downstream communities.” Using figures from the Canadian Energy Research Institute, the report also indicates that the oilsands sector generates 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, and is expected to contribute $1.7 trillion to the Canadian economy over 25 years.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/environment-canada-report-warns-of-oilsands-concerns/feed/9The quiet cutshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-6/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-6/#commentsThu, 15 Sep 2011 19:53:47 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=215622Among various cuts at Environment Canada, the government is apparently about to eliminate an ozone monitoring program.
The British journal Nature says scientists and research institutes around the world have …

Among various cuts at Environment Canada, the government is apparently about to eliminate an ozone monitoring program.

The British journal Nature says scientists and research institutes around the world have been informally told the Canadian network will be shut down as early as this winter, putting an end to continuous ozone measurements that go back 45 years.

“People are gobsmacked by this decision,” Thomas Duck, an atmospheric researcher at Dalhousie University, said in an interview with Postmedia News. He and his international colleagues say they’ve been told the network and a related data archive will be closed down as part of the Harper government’s deep cuts at Environment Canada, where hundreds of jobs are being are eliminated.

While most of Canada has sizzled in recent months, it’s been downright gloomy in B.C. There were only seven days above 22° C in Vancouver between May and July (normally, there would have been about three weeks’ worth already). In fact, 2011 could be Vancouver’s coldest spring and summer on record, says David Phillips, a senior climatologist at Environment Canada. Making matters worse, it’s wetter than usual, too; the city has been drenched with 94 days of rain in the last four months. Victoria has also been colder and greyer than average.

Added up, it’s bad for business. Frank Bourree, a B.C. tourism industry analyst, says many restaurants have suffered because of the slowdown. Patios have been sitting empty and some proprietors have been forced to close. While the weather isn’t solely to blame, experts say it is giving potential tourists—especially Americans on the West Coast looking for a weekend getaway—second thoughts. (The plummeting U.S. dollar isn’t helping matters, either.)

B.C. relies heavily on U.S. tourism, and the industry had been hoping for a big year. While Tourism Victoria says the number of U.S. visitors to that city is up slightly from last year, the total is still down considerably from pre-recession levels. And things aren’t looking much brighter in the near future. The weather forecast for August: more of the same.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/has-anyone-seen-the-sun/feed/0The quiet cutshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-5/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-5/#commentsThu, 04 Aug 2011 15:00:57 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=207592Environment Canada is due to shed somewhere between 300 and 700 jobs.
He said the department was eliminating 300 positions, rather than the more than 700 positions cited by the …

He said the department was eliminating 300 positions, rather than the more than 700 positions cited by the unions. Attrition will cover many of the losses, while others affected will get help to transition to new jobs.

“While difficult, this decision will allow our government to continue to invest in clear air and a healthier environment for Canadians,” Morris said, adding that the department has no fewer employees than when the Tories took office in 2006.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent has remained tight-lipped over his department’s decision to replace a Gatineau, Que. office building’s workstations with new furniture. Environment Canada spent $141,000 to store the furniture for about a year, before putting it up for auction and purchasing new furniture for the building, which was under renovation. However, a spokesman told Postmedia News the government thought it was more “cost-effective” to replace the cabinets, steel metal wall panels covered in fabric, electrical outlets and wiring. The spokesman said the department is working on an explanation as to why it paid to store furniture it didn’t keep.

Last week, a powerful tornado ripped through the town of Midland, Ont., knocking down trees, tearing up power lines, and tossing mobile homes through the air. In the half-hour it lasted, about 40 homes and businesses were destroyed, and another 75 were damaged. Almost 20 people were treated in hospital for injuries, some due to flying debris. Gregory Kopp, a University of Western Ontario professor who studies the impact of severe wind on buildings, sent two senior students to survey the damage. “It looks pretty bad, actually,” he says. “Mobile homes tend not to do well in windstorms.”

It’s a well-worn joke that tornadoes go looking for trailer parks. But other buildings are vulnerable, too, and Kopp can’t understand why homeowners do so little to protect themselves, even in places like Kansas, which is at the heart of so-called Tornado Alley.

“People just accept it as an act of God, but it’s not,” says Kopp, a mechanical engineer. “With every tornado, we see the same kinds of damage over and over again. I believe we can stop it, and for not too much money.”

A tornado’s strength is defined by what it destroys, since actually measuring its wind speed can be difficult or dangerous. In Midland, a damage survey revealed it to be an F2, with peak winds of up to 240 km/h. (The Fujita scale, which measures tornado intensity, runs from zero to five.) So far, Canada’s had only one confirmed F5, three years ago in Elie, Man. That tornado was so powerful it literally blasted the bark off trees, but luckily, no one was seriously injured.

It’s a far cry from the infamous Edmonton tornado of 1987, an F4 that left 27 dead and injured hundreds more. The Prairies are Canada’s most prone region, according to Environment Canada; Saskatchewan averages 12 tornadoes per year, but Ontario isn’t too far behind, with 11. (The entire country sees about 50 in a year.) Still, the exact number of tornadoes across the country isn’t known, because some strike in unpopulated areas, where no one’s around to notice them. Thanks to urban sprawl and a warming climate, experts say more damaging storms could be on the horizon. “In Tornado Alley, they get huge numbers of tornadoes,” says Gordon McBean, another UWO professor and policy director at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, which studies disaster prevention. “As the climate shifts northward, will we get more of those? As a risk manager, I say yes.”

At the UWO, a leader in wind research, Kopp oversees the Insurance Research Lab for Better Homes, also known as the Three Little Pigs Project. In his team’s lab, a full-size, two-storey house has been built; in August, it will be ripped apart by a simulated windstorm (essentially “fancy vacuum cleaners that suck the roof off,” he says). A house’s roof is especially vulnerable in a tornado, where the wind can gust vertically. In 2012, the UWO will open a new wind research facility called the WindEEE Dome, the world’s first hexagonal wind tunnel; it will actually be able to recreate high-intensity systems like tornadoes.

To save houses from destruction, Kopp thinks that low-cost add-ons could make a huge difference—like wind-resistant nails, which are shaped like screws, or hurricane straps, thin pieces of metal that hold the roof in place. In most Canadian buildings, “the roof is simply nailed to the wall,” he says. He’s looking at new wall and window systems that might help prevent storm damage, too. He hopes his research will ultimately help bring about changes in the building code.

Still, “it’s almost a psychological question, more than engineering,” he says. “People would rather show off nice granite countertops than brag about a tornado-proof house.” If McBean is right, and more storms are on the way, that could change fast enough.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/storm-warnings/feed/5So, does this mean we can finally be interested in something other than the economic crisis? Liveblogging the AG and Enviro Commissioners’ embargoed press conferencehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/so-does-this-mean-we-can-finally-be-interested-in-something-other-than-the-economic-crisis-liveblogging-the-ag-and-enviro-commissioners-embargoed-press-conference/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/so-does-this-mean-we-can-finally-be-interested-in-something-other-than-the-economic-crisis-liveblogging-the-ag-and-enviro-commissioners-embargoed-press-conference/#commentsThu, 05 Feb 2009 19:14:38 +0000kadyomalleyhttp://blog.macleans.ca/?p=3385412:03:53 PM
So you guys? Turns out it’s really too bad that we’re not caring about the environment at the moment, because for the first time i can recall, the…

So you guys? Turns out it’s really too bad that we’re not caring about the environment at the moment, because for the first time i can recall, the Auditor General is about to be almost entirely overshadowed by newbie environment commissioner Scott Vaughan, whose debut report begins with the words “the government cannot demonstrate that some of its key environmental programs are making a difference” and goes downhill – or uphill, depending on your perspective and whether or not you happen to be Jim Prentice – from there. Unsupported claims of reduced air pollution, severe weather alerts that can’t be trusted, $370 million ostensibly spent on green farming programs with nothing to show for it, sustainable development strategies that “aren’t working” – it just goes on and on. Meanwhile, over in the main report. Sheila Fraser finds the awarding of contracts for professional services ‘well done”. “Well done.” Seriously. Sure, she has a few nuggets of criticism scattered through the eight chapters – apparently, the report on health indicators is “of limited value to Canadians”, the Correctional Service “could be missing out on savings” and there are ‘significant issues” in the central oversight of small government organizations, but anyone hoping for shocking revelations of government waste and incompetence will be sorely disappointed. Which is good for the country, I’m sure, but not so much for us journalists. Thank goodness for the environment commissioner, y’all.Anyway, after having spent a few minutes going through the two reports while scarfing down complimentary sandwiches from the lunch table — seriously, these people know how to throw a lockup; I don’t see why the folks at Finance can’t just hire the OAG to cater their events as a subcontractors – I’m now waiting for the embargoed press conference to begin – and what do you know; it just did.

12:28:48 PM
Sheila Fraser – who looks exactly like she always does – gives a brief opening statement before handing the microphone over to Scott Vaughan, who then goes over his main findings, as noted above, paying special attention to the severe weather warning alerts, which, he says, just aren’t providing the needed information, despite the fact that Environment Canada “is considered a world leader”. Overall, he says “most of what we found was disappointing” – regulations not being enforced, clean air trust fund money being doled out to provinces with no guarantee that it will reduce pollution, the public transit tax credit, which – surprise, surprise – was found ineffective. He closes by noting that the government “has an important role to play” on the environment, but simply isn’t able to demonstrate any success. He hands the floor back to Sheila Fraser, who has to follow his litany of observed and audited failure with an overview of the importance of understanding federal-provincial transfer payments, as well as the health indicators report, which “falls short”, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s management of plant imports, which, it’s worth pointing out, she found sorely wanting. She breezes past the chapters related to the Canada Revenue Agency – information technology and staffing – and spends a bit more time on Correctional Services, where overtime has increased, yet the number of inmates has remained constant and the government could possibly spend less on food and clothing. As for the small agencies and entities, she calls for ‘concrete action’ to fix various long-standing administrative problems before giving Public Works and Government Services a gold star for excellence in managing professional contracts, and opens the floor to questions. I wonder if she’ll get a single one.

12:44:01 PM
First up: Allan Woods, who wonders where, exactly, the government came up with the numbers for projected emissions reductions via the public transit tax credit; Vaughan – who looks a little nervous — did someone remind him what happens to overly independent minded independent officers? – admits that he’s not sure. Oh, and there’s one for Sheila Fraser on the “trust funds” for provinces; she explains that the report was just to give parliamentarians a better idea of how this particular transfer system operates.

12:47:38 PM
David Llundgren wonders whether there was any way that the public transit credit concept could have worked, and Vaughan veers away from the specifics — he calls it “disappointing,” but the reporter offers “colossal waste of money” as an alternative, to muted giggles from the audience, if not the environment commissioner, who reminds me of a very, very, very, very, very serious Michael Scott.

Global TV’s Peter Harris also can’t quite get his head around the wild off-ness of the transit tax credit – how could the government have been *that* wrong? Vaughan suggests that we might want to ask the government that question – oh, don’t worry, we will – but suggests that the forecasting model used by the department may have resulted in the disparity, which is particularly comforting when one realizes how much depends on the same government’s ability to forecast the fiscal future.

12:52:34 PM
David Akin quizzes Fraser on her findings on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency — alien plant imports, remember? – and asks if she is disturbed by what she’s uncovered as far as inspection and management; she agrees that there are risks, and goes into a little more detail about her recommendations, but it’s fair to say that most of us are just waiting for her to finish so that someone can ask Vaughan another question.

12:54:53 PM
That someone, it turns out, is Sun Media reporter Sim, who describes the environment report as “scathing”, and wonders if he was surprised at just how bad it was; Vaughan reminds him that this is his first report, but he admits – again – to having been “disappointed”. Fraser gets another question about her explainer trust-fund-based federal-provincial transfers from a French reporter – CBC, I think, but I can’t see who is at the microphone – and then back to Vaughan for yet another question along the same lines as the earlier ones: how – HOW – could the government have been so wrong? Which is, admittedly, a fair question, although I’m not sure if he can answer it, really. Vaughan notes that the analysis was flawed in one case, but on the transit credit, they – the government, that is – should at least get credit for adjusting the original forecast so radically downwards.

1:03:01 PM
A French reporter asks Vaughan to answer the question of whether Canadians are getting value for the $635 million spent on the public transit tax credit – in French, that is – and he obligingly repeats his conclusion: for all that money, this was a “disappointing” result. Indeed. Apparently, in response to the criticism of the weather alert system, Environment Canada has assured the commissioner that most of the problems that he identified have already been fixed during the ISO process, and Vaughan once again tries to give the government credit for recognizing the problem with its original projection, which is a nice gesture, but seems unlikely to completely kill the story of the $635 million in pointless non-emission-reducing tax credits.

As for the findings on toxic substances, which in one case, increased threefold *after* it was declared as such, a reporter asks if he would go so far as to say the mismanagement may have led to an increase in cancer rates, which he won’t, although he notes that as a parent of a small child, he worries.

1:12:19 PM
Bob Fife repeats the question about getting any value from the transit credit, and gets the same answer from Vaughan- and that’s it for the press conference. Wow, that went quickly. Only 45 minutes to go, and you’ll all be able to share in the boggling over the bus pass boondoggle, which – for the record – I’m not proposing as the official moniker, although if the alternative is something that ends in -gate, I’ll reconsider.